There are bones found but very, very few frozen. It appears the number is about 40. Your number was 5 million wasn't it? That is one major thing (you would agree that 40 is not near 5 million right?) utterly wrong. (btw, only about 5 or so are nearly complete).

You need to supply your source so it can be examined for accuracy. It is entirely possible that you have been lied to.

Before I explain this corrilation, I'd like to state that mammoths, dispite most artists seem to think, were NOT frozen tundra animals. The fur coat on the discovered wolly mammoths is not thick enough to have kept the animals warm in a Siberian winter as we see it today. In fact, it isn't much if any thicker then we see on many moderate climate animals today, bison perhaps? Therefore, it stands to reason that there was SOMEthing that happened to change the climate of northern Siberia while the mammoths were already there. It also stands to reason that that is what caused the mammoths (not to mention the other animals that have been found frozen in the Siberian wasteland) to have frozen with food still in their mouths (as was in the case of one of the Berezovka mammoths)

And your source that the fur isn't thick enough? And you explanation of the other indications of the climate at the time? Ice age remember?

Please supply references and clear reasoning. Your AiG paste doesn't support flash freezing. The conditions described would take days or weeks to cool the earth. No "frozen while eating" nonsense.

It also appears that AiG has decided that the Bible is missing a lot. It fails to mention anything of what they need to invent. I guess the God they believe in needs some help.

So how else would you suggust that a fossil made it to the top of a mountain?

Before you criticize modern science maybe you should find out something about it. You haven't heard of plate tectonics? Do you know what the nature of the fossils on tops of mountains are? (hint: they are NOT the clams you find on your beach today) If you look into these details you'll find that your flood hypothosis breaks down.

When I see a sudden change in the earth's features, I like to ask why. Why did a lazy, meandering river suddenly become a rushing rapids flowing as straight as a stick for four miles? And what made that river suddenly fall 185 feet, then again meander calmly down to the Snake River? ( Doesn't sound like uplift to me, taking billions of year to create such a fascinating site )

However take 25000 ft / 12000 yr gives around a 2 ft per year, double it to account for erosion and you have 4 ft/year.

That isn't correct, I don't think, erosion rates don't necessarily double just because uplift rates do. In fact, I think erosion rates are very limited by particular things (rock hardness being one and the eroding mechanism being another). I'd guess rock hardness predominates but even if (for some reason) doubling the uplift doubled the amount of, say, water flowing down the mountain I don't think that would double the erosion. My reasoning goes; only the water in contact with the rock erodes it. If you have a much deeper layer of water than the turbulent contact zone then no additional depth will bring more erosive force against the rock.

These are the same channels that regularly show programs on UFOs and ghosts. These programs are entertainment. None of what you see on these ridiculous shows are from scientific journals.

While these are not primary sources they often do a very good journalist job of presenting good information in a digestible way. Of course, there is junk on there too but it is not to be totally ignored; just used as a jumping off point to find out more.

You are neglecting the very real possibility that our source, Refpunk, has gotten this horridly wrong just like everything else he has posted.